Supporters of gay marriage embrace outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday after the court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California by holding that defenders of California’s gay marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the ban.

Gay couples in Orange County and beyond are preparing to get married after Wednesday’s Supreme Court decisions, although it will be at least 25 days before such weddings are possible, and several legal issues remain.

In addressing California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages, the court’s 5-4 decision allows to stand a lower-court ruling that the initiative is unconstitutional – a ruling that also raises questions about the future of the state’s initiative process. In a separate 5-4 decision, the court struck down a key component of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had banned federal benefits for legally married same-gender couples.

But gay marriages in the state continue to be blocked by a stay, issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 pending a Supreme Court ruling. The appeals court said Wednesday it would wait at least 25 days to remove the stay, allowing Prop. 8 proponents time to ask for a rehearing before the Supreme Court. The stay could continue beyond that if a rehearing is granted, it said.

Gov. Jerry Brown and state Attorney General Kamala Harris said they believed same-gender weddings would be taking place in the near future.

“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California,” Brown said.

Among celebratory rallies Wednesday was an evening event outside the Old Courthouse in Santa Ana. That’s where county marriage licenses are issued, and while Anaheim Hills couple Al Milo and Tom Johnson weren’t on hand for the rally, the couple of 39 years plan to get married there.

“It’s a good day,” Milo said. “We are very happy with the court’s decision.”

Milo acknowledged that the high court’s Prop. 8 ruling was based on a technicality – that backers of the 2008 measure didn’t have standing to appeal the lower-court ruling that the law violated constitutional protections of equal rights. Better would have been a ruling that gay marriages were a constitutional right nationwide, he said.

“I personally would have wanted a wider decision, affecting states other than California, but since we live in California, we’ll take what we can,” he said.

The high court ruled that only top state officials can defend legal challenges to voter initiatives. Brown and Harris – and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before them – declined to defend Prop. 8, saying they believed it was unconstitutional.

Backers of Prop. 8 then stepped in to defend the measure from legal challenges.

Experts said the ruling against private parties – such as Prop. 8 advocates – entering the legal fray endangers the initiative process. If the governor and attorney general can effectively veto initiatives they don’t like by refusing to defend them in court, the public’s ability to pass such measures is undermined, said John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at USC.

“Regardless of what you think about same-sex marriage, you should be concerned about the initiative process,” Matsusaka said. He said it’s uncommon for the state not to defend initiatives, but it’s unclear how the dilemma created by the Supreme Court will be resolved.

“It’s hard for me to see where you go from here,” Matsusaka said.

Doug NeJaime, a professor at Loyola Law School, agreed.

“It’s significant,” he said. “We’ll have to see how significant, but it clearly goes beyond Prop. 8.”

Prop. 8 supporters, meanwhile, focused on possible shortcomings that could be the target of new legal challenges.

John Eastman, a professor at Chapman Law School who has advocated for Prop. 8, pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling basically deferred to U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 determination that the measure was unconstitutional.

But in the Defense of Marriage Act ruling, the high court said marriage was an issue left up to the states – an apparent conflict with gay-marriage bans being unconstitutional, he said.

Eastman also said there could be a challenge over whether Walker’s ruling should apply only to the two couples who filed the suit against Prop. 8 – or possibly apply only to the two counties where those couples live, Los Angeles and Alameda.

NeJaime said that while there may be a legal challenge, he doubts it will succeed.

“We have a lower court ruling that it’s unconstitutional, and we have state officials saying they’re ready to issue marriage permits,” he said. “I don’t think there’s that much political will to fight this. Public opinion has shifted since Prop. 8 was passed.”

Prop. 8 passed with 52.3 percent of the vote in 2008, but public opinion polls show support for gay marriage growing steadily. A May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 56 percent of Californians backed gay marriage.

If gay marriage is resumed, California would become the 13th state allowing such nuptials.

Before the measure qualified for the ballot, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage and for 142 days such marriage was legal in California.

About 18,000 couples married during that time.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Prop. 8, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, found a mix of conservatives and liberals joining him in the majority: Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

The ruling on DOMA found author Anthony Kennedy joined by the liberal wing: Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Approved by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, DOMA definied marriage at the federal level as existing only between a man and a woman and barred same-sex couples from federal tax, health and pension benefits.

Register staff writers Cathy Taylor, Elizabeth Held and Matthew Fleming in Washington, D.C., and Sherri Cruz in Orange County, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Martin Wisckol has been the Register's politics writer and weekly Buzz columnist since 1998, and was given the title of political editor by a generous boss in 2011. He started his career writing about surfing and music, but has written predominantly about government and politics since 1985. He has held reporting positions in his hometown of San Diego, as well as in Detroit, Jacksonville and Miami. Along the way, he has put in extended stints in Japan, South America and Switzerland. His work has been honored by the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Headliner Awards, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and the Florida Press Club, among others.

Tony Saavedra is an investigative reporter specializing in legal affairs for the Orange County Register. His work has been recognized by the National Headliner Club, the Associated Press Sports Editors, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association and the Orange County Press Club. His stories have led to the closure of a chain of badly-run group homes, the end of a state program that placed criminals in inappropriate public jobs and the creation of a civilian oversight office for the Orange County Sheriff's Department, among other things. Saavedra has covered the Los Angeles riots, the O.J. Simpson case, the downfall of Orange County Sheriff-turned felon Michael S. Carona and the use of unauthorized drugs by Olympian Carl Lewis. Saavedra has worked as a journalist since 1979 and has held positions at several Southern California newspapers before arriving at the Orange County Register in 1990. He graduated from California State University, Fullerton, in 1981 with a bachelor of arts in communication.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.